LDS 4000 Changes To The BOM

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Does it matter?

Does God not know how to inspire scripture with proper grammar?

The Bible didn’t need 4000 changes in grammar.
I'm going to take a guess. The punctuation changes are 3500, the grammar errors are 500, and the brazen changes to verse text is 10. Tell me if my 10 is too low. But if it is 10 or so, the rest are meaningless punctuation and grammatical errors, which represents 99.99% of the changes.
 
Upvote 0

blackhead

Theologia Crucis
Nov 20, 2018
227
124
72
Florida
✟3,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm going to take a guess. The punctuation changes are 3500, the grammar errors are 500, and the brazen changes to verse text is 10. Tell me if my 10 is too low. But if it is 10 or so, the rest are meaningless punctuation and grammatical errors, which represents 99.99% of the changes.

God would not make 5000 errors in his translation even if they were grammar and punctuation. JS is a false prophet.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RoseCrystal
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
@Peter1000 you said "Ok, just do this: Count how many brazen changes to the text of a verse that changes the theology of the Church. If you count more than 6-10 I would be surprized."

Are you serious? You think its OK to have 6-10 changes in a book of scripture that change the theology and beliefs of a church you dedicate your life to? I have to strongly disagree with your logic here, ONE such change is enough, but to allow 6-10 before you even start to let it bother you I find very disturbing, but if it works for you then that's great and there is probably no point at all in continuing this discussion with you because you have a very generous error threshold so any inconsistency is going to be covered by that position. Kinda the same as 'we believe in the bible are far as its translated correctly', in other words, if it goes against what I want to believe about my church, not matter what the evidence is, I can just fall back on this excuse.

I have already shown in this thread quite a few changes in the text of the book of mormon that change the theological beliefs of the LDS church. I NEVER said there were 5000 changes that changed the theological beliefs of the church, I said I like to focus on the ones that do change the theology, and God can spell so I don't think the excuse/argument of 'its mainly grammar and spelling' with regards to 99.99% (your claimed statistic) of the changes is a credible apologetic position.

If the passages I have shown you are not enough (the ones that change the church obvious racist attitude to 'soften' the message because god changed his mind about black people in 1978) then I think this one is enough of a theological change to question the validity of both the god of the LDS church and of Jospeh Smith as a prophet, because Jesus does not just stop being god in the space of 7 years, but Josephs ideas and what he wanted to achieve with the church he started certainly did change dramatically in those 7 years.

Even his one of his 3 witnesses, Oliver Cowdrey was excommunicated in 1838 for questioning Joseph on his going against the book of mormon and practicing polygamy (which was supposedly of god and said polygamy is not allowed). Josephs doctrine and beliefs of his church changed with what Joseph himself wanted to believe at the time. Which seems to be a theme, because only the living prophet can be trusted right? If he disagrees with everything that the LDS church was founded on, then its rubbish right? Very convenient.

There are more, you can look them up yourself.

1 Nephi 13:40 1830
...that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world...


1 Nephi 13:40 1837
...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world.


Jesus has been demoted here, from God to just the son of God, pretty big theological change. God doesn't mess up that bad. And Jesus had to be demoted in quite a few places in the book of mormon

1 Nephi 11:18 1830
"And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh


1 Nephi 11:18 1837
"And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."

1 Nephi 11:21 1830
"And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

1 Nephi 11:21 1837
"And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! . . . "


Just in case you missed it here are a couple that go from god promoting racism to a 'softer' version to fit in with the times and beliefs of the day.

2 Nephi, ch. 5. In 1981 it reads
The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.


in 2010 it reads
The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.


Mormon, ch. 5. In 1981 reads
Mormon again leads the Nephite armies in battles of blood and carnage—The Book of Mormon shall come forth to convince all Israel that Jesus is the Christ—The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people—They shall receive the gospel from the Gentiles in the latter days.


in 2010 it reads
Mormon again leads the Nephite armies in battles of blood and carnage—The Book of Mormon will come forth to convince all Israel that Jesus is the Christ— Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them—They will receive the gospel from the Gentiles in the latter days.


and lets not forget poor king Mosiah, and the argument that 'it was mormon who got it wrong' doesn't stand up as credible either, Joseph Smith was translating with the power of god right? God knows that mormon made that mistake and his spirit was with Joseph Smith in the translation process right? If he wasn't then its not of god at all, and if he was then he wouldn't let the mistake (or any mistake for that matter) happen in the first place.

Mosiah 21:28 was changed in 1964 from

"king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; " to

"king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; "
 
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I believe, but have not done this, that when there is a new translation of the bible, I think there is at least 60% of the total verses will have changed. It may not be a mind blowing change that changes the meaning of the verse, but a change nonetheless. That could equal thousands of changes in each translation.

Also, we do not have the original manuscript for any book in the bible, so it is really impossible to know for sure anything about who is right when it comes to the text.

This is just not true dude, and a really demeaning way to look at the bible, which is the word of God. We do have very early copies of the hebrew and greek, and the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls backed up the fact that those early copies of the hebrew and greek that we do have are accurate, again please actually have a look at an interlinear copy of the bible.

And please point out at least ONE verse in the bible that Joseph Smith used to back up his claim that you can only trust the bible 'as far as it is translated correctly'. I mean he is the prophet of god that started the LDS church, if he claimed such a thing about holy scripture he must at least have ONE example of what he was talking about right? 'its just the vibe of the thing' doesn't count.

Online Greek Interlinear Bible
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
@Peter1000 you said "Ok, just do this: Count how many brazen changes to the text of a verse that changes the theology of the Church. If you count more than 6-10 I would be surprized."

Are you serious? You think its OK to have 6-10 changes in a book of scripture that change the theology and beliefs of a church you dedicate your life to? I have to strongly disagree with your logic here, ONE such change is enough, but to allow 6-10 before you even start to let it bother you I find very disturbing, but if it works for you then that's great and there is probably no point at all in continuing this discussion with you because you have a very generous error threshold so any inconsistency is going to be covered by that position. Kinda the same as 'we believe in the bible are far as its translated correctly', in other words, if it goes against what I want to believe about my church, not matter what the evidence is, I can just fall back on this excuse.

I have already shown in this thread quite a few changes in the text of the book of mormon that change the theological beliefs of the LDS church. I NEVER said there were 5000 changes that changed the theological beliefs of the church, I said I like to focus on the ones that do change the theology, and God can spell so I don't think the excuse/argument of 'its mainly grammar and spelling' with regards to 99.99% (your claimed statistic) of the changes is a credible apologetic position.

If the passages I have shown you are not enough (the ones that change the church obvious racist attitude to 'soften' the message because god changed his mind about black people in 1978) then I think this one is enough of a theological change to question the validity of both the god of the LDS church and of Jospeh Smith as a prophet, because Jesus does not just stop being god in the space of 7 years, but Josephs ideas and what he wanted to achieve with the church he started certainly did change dramatically in those 7 years.

Even his one of his 3 witnesses, Oliver Cowdrey was excommunicated in 1838 for questioning Joseph on his going against the book of mormon and practicing polygamy (which was supposedly of god and said polygamy is not allowed). Josephs doctrine and beliefs of his church changed with what Joseph himself wanted to believe at the time. Which seems to be a theme, because only the living prophet can be trusted right? If he disagrees with everything that the LDS church was founded on, then its rubbish right? Very convenient.

There are more, you can look them up yourself.

1 Nephi 13:40 1830
...that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world...


1 Nephi 13:40 1837
...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world.


Jesus has been demoted here, from God to just the son of God, pretty big theological change. God doesn't mess up that bad. And Jesus had to be demoted in quite a few places in the book of mormon

1 Nephi 11:18 1830
"And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh


1 Nephi 11:18 1837
"And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."

1 Nephi 11:21 1830
"And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

1 Nephi 11:21 1837
"And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! . . . "


Just in case you missed it here are a couple that go from god promoting racism to a 'softer' version to fit in with the times and beliefs of the day.

2 Nephi, ch. 5. In 1981 it reads
The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.


in 2010 it reads
The Nephites separate themselves from the Lamanites, keep the law of Moses, and build a temple—Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.


Mormon, ch. 5. In 1981 reads
Mormon again leads the Nephite armies in battles of blood and carnage—The Book of Mormon shall come forth to convince all Israel that Jesus is the Christ—The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people—They shall receive the gospel from the Gentiles in the latter days.


in 2010 it reads
Mormon again leads the Nephite armies in battles of blood and carnage—The Book of Mormon will come forth to convince all Israel that Jesus is the Christ— Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them—They will receive the gospel from the Gentiles in the latter days.


and lets not forget poor king Mosiah, and the argument that 'it was mormon who got it wrong' doesn't stand up as credible either, Joseph Smith was translating with the power of god right? God knows that mormon made that mistake and his spirit was with Joseph Smith in the translation process right? If he wasn't then its not of god at all, and if he was then he wouldn't let the mistake (or any mistake for that matter) happen in the first place.

Mosiah 21:28 was changed in 1964 from

"king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; " to

"king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; "
Ok, I counted 6 verses were brazenly changed, but did they change our theology?
Let's see:
1 Nephi 13:40
Is the name of Jesus "the Eternal Father"? Yes. Is the name of Jesus also "the Son of the Eternal Father"? Yes. So whether JS used Eternal Father to refer to Jesus or The Son of the Eternal Father it does not matter.
The title of the Eternal Father can refer to both God the Eternal Father or Jesus, the Son of the Eternal Father. Because the scipture is referring to the Son, JS changed the name to avoid confusion.
It did not change our theology, because Jesus is known by both names. But the name of the Eternal Father also refers to Jesus's God and Father (John 20:17), God the Eternal Father.
So that brazen change is a nothingburger.

1 Nephi 11:18
Is the name of Jesus "God"? Yes. Is the name of Jesus also "the Son of God"? Yes.
The title of God can refer to both God the Father, or His Son, Jesus Christ. Because the scripture is referring to the Son, JS changed the name to avoid confusion.
It did not change our theology, because Jesus is know by both names. But the name of God also refers to Jesus's God and Father(John 20:17), God the Father.
So again that brazen change is a nothingburger.

1 Nephi 11:21
Same thing as 1 Nephi 13:40 so read it again and that brazen change also becomes a nothingburger.

2 Nephi ch. 5
The main point of this scripture is that the Lamanites were cursed and were cut off from the presence of the Lord. This is not a doctrinal issue, like someone needs to be baptized in order to be saved.
So how they were cursed is not going to change our theology. If the original translation said that the curse was a skin of blackness, but a prophet of the Lord thought it would be proper to just say they were cursed, and he went to the Lord, and the Lord gave him permission to make the change, then it was made.
The brazen change did not alter our theology, or doctrine, and so again this brazen change turns out to be a nothingburger.

Mormon ch. 5
Same thing for 2 Nephi ch. 5. If a prophet of God in 2010 thought some words were inappropriate, and he went to the Lord and the Lord gave him permission to change some words, he did it.
The brazen change did not alter our theology, there are still Lamanites and Nephites, and the BOM is still true and all the theology in the book is still in place. So the brazen changes amount to a nothingburger again.

The Benjamin/Mosiah mistake by Mormon has already been discussed.
This brazen change does not alter our theology, so this brazen change amounts to a big old nothingburger again.

So I count a total of 6 brazen changes (that amount to no brazen change in reality). Believe me if they did, I would reconsider my membership. But they do not, as demonstrated.

So 5,000 - 6 = 4994 other changes that are of a punctuation or grammatical changes.

And the BOM is still the most correct book and is the keystone to our religion. The changes just made it more correct than before. NO change in our theology. If you think it did change our theology, tell me how it did.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
God would not make 5000 errors in his translation even if they were grammar and punctuation. JS is a false prophet.
How do you know, you were not alive in 45 - 110ad to see what happened to the original manuscripts. We have no idea what changes were made in 325ad when the first bible was actually put together. So don't tell me what you don't know.

Find me an original and then we can talk. But if you did, I think you would be astonished at the mispelled words and punctuation errors, and grammatical error.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
This is just not true dude, and a really demeaning way to look at the bible, which is the word of God. We do have very early copies of the hebrew and greek, and the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls backed up the fact that those early copies of the hebrew and greek that we do have are accurate, again please actually have a look at an interlinear copy of the bible.

And please point out at least ONE verse in the bible that Joseph Smith used to back up his claim that you can only trust the bible 'as far as it is translated correctly'. I mean he is the prophet of god that started the LDS church, if he claimed such a thing about holy scripture he must at least have ONE example of what he was talking about right? 'its just the vibe of the thing' doesn't count.

Online Greek Interlinear Bible
First I am Peter not dude. Thank you.

Second, answer if you can: what % of the bible have we recovered via the DSS? I will give you a guess.
1)10-20% 2) 30-40% 3) 100%

So unless you choos 100%, we can not back up the fact that those early copies of the hebrew that we do have are accurate. Since the DDS were in hebrew, the greek cannot be compared.

Revelation 3:14 New International Version (NIV)

14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

compare:

Revelation 3:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

In the NIV it calls Jesus the "ruler" of God's creation.
In the KJV it calls Jesus the "beginning" of the creation of God.

The change/error makes these 2 verses compelely different and 2 different meanings for the nature of Jesus.
In the NIV Jesus is the ruler of God creation. In the KJV Jesus is the beginning or first creation of God.

Way different meanings, yet 10 translations are like the KJV, and 10 are like the NIV. If we had the original manuscripts we could get to the bottom of it, but we can't.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
God would not make 5000 errors in his translation even if they were grammar and punctuation. JS is a false prophet.

You *do* realize that a pretty huge number of the changes involve things like "the raw text had no chapters and verses marked off, so it was trial and error in breaking things down", right?

We also have a number of clear errors made by various printers, errors that were exposed when the text was compared to surviving working pages from the translation.

Seriously - the whole "X number of changes" argument is as inert as a lame duck politician.
 
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
First I am Peter not dude. Thank you.

Second, answer if you can: what % of the bible have we recovered via the DSS? I will give you a guess.
1)10-20% 2) 30-40% 3) 100%

So unless you choos 100%, we can not back up the fact that those early copies of the hebrew that we do have are accurate. Since the DDS were in hebrew, the greek cannot be compared.

Revelation 3:14 New International Version (NIV)

14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

compare:

Revelation 3:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

In the NIV it calls Jesus the "ruler" of God's creation.
In the KJV it calls Jesus the "beginning" of the creation of God.

The change/error makes these 2 verses compelely different and 2 different meanings for the nature of Jesus.
In the NIV Jesus is the ruler of God creation. In the KJV Jesus is the beginning or first creation of God.

Way different meanings, yet 10 translations are like the KJV, and 10 are like the NIV. If we had the original manuscripts we could get to the bottom of it, but we can't.

Peter JS used the KJV, the NIV did not exist (first published 1978) when JS said the bible can only be trusted as far as it is translated correctly. This is a terrible apologetic argument to try and back up JS position. Try again

So please point out at least ONE verse in the KJV that Joseph Smith said was an example of the bible being mistranslated? He must have at least one right? Otherwise, people would have to conclude that he's just making stuff up. And to make such a statement he must have more than one verse right? He must have studied Ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew to be qualified to make such a statement right? Jospeh Smith must have made a whole list of these supposed verses to make such a claim? I'd love to read it, can you point me to where it is? There is not though is there? Because such a list doesn't exist.

The word you are referring too in this verse is 'archE' which can be literally translated as either beginning or original. In any case this version of the bible was not available when Jospeh Smith made that statement, he wasn't talking about the NIV version of the bible, he was talking about the translations of the bible available to him, the KJV, which you just used as an example of a good trustworthy translation. You can't have it both ways
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ok, I counted 6 verses were brazenly changed, but did they change our theology?
Let's see:
1 Nephi 13:40
Is the name of Jesus "the Eternal Father"? Yes. Is the name of Jesus also "the Son of the Eternal Father"? Yes. So whether JS used Eternal Father to refer to Jesus or The Son of the Eternal Father it does not matter.
The title of the Eternal Father can refer to both God the Eternal Father or Jesus, the Son of the Eternal Father. Because the scipture is referring to the Son, JS changed the name to avoid confusion.
It did not change our theology, because Jesus is known by both names. But the name of the Eternal Father also refers to Jesus's God and Father (John 20:17), God the Eternal Father.
So that brazen change is a nothingburger.

1 Nephi 11:18
Is the name of Jesus "God"? Yes. Is the name of Jesus also "the Son of God"? Yes.
The title of God can refer to both God the Father, or His Son, Jesus Christ. Because the scripture is referring to the Son, JS changed the name to avoid confusion.
It did not change our theology, because Jesus is know by both names. But the name of God also refers to Jesus's God and Father(John 20:17), God the Father.
So again that brazen change is a nothingburger.

1 Nephi 11:21
Same thing as 1 Nephi 13:40 so read it again and that brazen change also becomes a nothingburger.

2 Nephi ch. 5
The main point of this scripture is that the Lamanites were cursed and were cut off from the presence of the Lord. This is not a doctrinal issue, like someone needs to be baptized in order to be saved.
So how they were cursed is not going to change our theology. If the original translation said that the curse was a skin of blackness, but a prophet of the Lord thought it would be proper to just say they were cursed, and he went to the Lord, and the Lord gave him permission to make the change, then it was made.
The brazen change did not alter our theology, or doctrine, and so again this brazen change turns out to be a nothingburger.

Mormon ch. 5
Same thing for 2 Nephi ch. 5. If a prophet of God in 2010 thought some words were inappropriate, and he went to the Lord and the Lord gave him permission to change some words, he did it.
The brazen change did not alter our theology, there are still Lamanites and Nephites, and the BOM is still true and all the theology in the book is still in place. So the brazen changes amount to a nothingburger again.

The Benjamin/Mosiah mistake by Mormon has already been discussed.
This brazen change does not alter our theology, so this brazen change amounts to a big old nothingburger again.

So I count a total of 6 brazen changes (that amount to no brazen change in reality). Believe me if they did, I would reconsider my membership. But they do not, as demonstrated.

So 5,000 - 6 = 4994 other changes that are of a punctuation or grammatical changes.

And the BOM is still the most correct book and is the keystone to our religion. The changes just made it more correct than before. NO change in our theology. If you think it did change our theology, tell me how it did.
I see a lot of excuses here and nothing that actually stands up as a credible apologetic argument for the LDS church.

At the end of the day if the book of mormon was really translated by the power of god - especially in the way JS claimed it was, word by word with god showing him the words in his hat, then there would be need for any changes at all. (and interesting that the LDS church for years purposely tried to get their members and investigators to believe he was sitting there with the plates in front of him doing this translation without a hat, very deceptive)

I am not continuing this discussion anymore, I think its pointless.

And like I said there is a lot more than 6, 6 is all I could be bothered listing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I see a lot of excuses here and nothing that actually stands up as a credible apologetic argument for the LDS church.

At the end of the day if the book of mormon was really translated by the power of god - especially in the way JS claimed it was, word by word with god showing him the words in his hat, then there would be need for any changes at all. (and interesting that the LDS church for years purposely tried to get their members and investigators to believe he was sitting there with the plates in front of him doing this translation without a hat, very deceptive)

I am not continuing this discussion anymore, I think its pointless.

And like I said there is a lot more than 6, 6 is all I could be bothered listing.
You gave me 6 and I debunked all 6, give me more brazen changes and let's take a look at how brazen they really are.

But before you give up on me, just answer this question:

Could JS had translated the name of Jesus Christ as "The Eternal Father", or as "The Son of the Eternal Father"? Would either name be OK? The answer, if you are intellectually honest, is of course, JS could have translated it properly using either name.
Your argument is that these brazen changes, also changes our theology. Well, in this case, as you can clearly see, it does not. The end of your silliness.
Therefore, you are only left with the change itself. Your only argument is that you cannot change the Word of God, period, or you have a false book. Therefore the BOM is a false book because there were changes made. Doesn't matter that the changes did not change the theology like you say. There were changes and JS is a false prophet who translated a false book.

I am not here to throw rocks at the bible. We revere the bible and read it for spiritual nourishment and we believe it to be the word of God. We believe the BOM to be the most correct book, but we believe the Bible is the Word of God also and read it every day, and try to incorporate its teachings into our lives also. We also read the D&C as the Word of God. And the Pearl of Great Price, and the conference talks given by our apostles and prophet and other leaders of the church. So our information sources are far more extensive than is your sources. That is what makes a living church so dynamic. Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone of the foundation of our church, but there are apostles and prophets also just like in the Church of Jesus Christ of the first century. Direct revelation is the key. Way more information about how to lead and guide the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the current church in what it and its people should be doing and not doing. That is how a true church acts.
 
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You gave me 6 and I debunked all 6, give me more brazen changes and let's take a look at how brazen they really are.

But before you give up on me, just answer this question:

Could JS had translated the name of Jesus Christ as "The Eternal Father", or as "The Son of the Eternal Father"? Would either name be OK? The answer, if you are intellectually honest, is of course, JS could have translated it properly using either name.
Your argument is that these brazen changes, also changes our theology. Well, in this case, as you can clearly see, it does not. The end of your silliness.
Therefore, you are only left with the change itself. Your only argument is that you cannot change the Word of God, period, or you have a false book. Therefore the BOM is a false book because there were changes made. Doesn't matter that the changes did not change the theology like you say. There were changes and JS is a false prophet who translated a false book.

I am not here to throw rocks at the bible. We revere the bible and read it for spiritual nourishment and we believe it to be the word of God. We believe the BOM to be the most correct book, but we believe the Bible is the Word of God also and read it every day, and try to incorporate its teachings into our lives also. We also read the D&C as the Word of God. And the Pearl of Great Price, and the conference talks given by our apostles and prophet and other leaders of the church. So our information sources are far more extensive than is your sources. That is what makes a living church so dynamic. Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone of the foundation of our church, but there are apostles and prophets also just like in the Church of Jesus Christ of the first century. Direct revelation is the key. Way more information about how to lead and guide the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the current church in what it and its people should be doing and not doing. That is how a true church acts.

My point is when you put together all the evidence about how the book was translated, all the changes made to the book, especially changes that change how the church defines its beliefs (like blacks and the priesthood and if Jesus is god or just the son of god and not god as well) Plus the known and documented criminal record and the charter of Joseph Smith himself. I believe there is beyond ample evidence that JS is a false prophet and the LDS church is based on lies and therefore a false church. I also strongly believe there is extremely minimal arguments for the fact LDS people think he is a true prophet of god. The ones that are given and really not any good and do not stand up against critical and logical thinking.

I don't believe you 'de-bunked' anything. I believe belief in the book of mormon and the LDS church is misplaced and heresy. I do hope you get out of it.

You are if course free to believe whatever you like. But I wont be engaging in this conversation with you any further. Its pointless. I wish you well.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
My point is when you put together all the evidence about how the book was translated, all the changes made to the book, especially changes that change how the church defines its beliefs (like blacks and the priesthood and if Jesus is god or just the son of god and not god as well) Plus the known and documented criminal record and the charter of Joseph Smith himself. I believe there is beyond ample evidence that JS is a false prophet and the LDS church is based on lies and therefore a false church. I also strongly believe there is extremely minimal arguments for the fact LDS people think he is a true prophet of god. The ones that are given and really not any good and do not stand up against critical and logical thinking.

I don't believe you 'de-bunked' anything. I believe belief in the book of mormon and the LDS church is misplaced and heresy. I do hope you get out of it.

You are if course free to believe whatever you like. But I wont be engaging in this conversation with you any further. Its pointless. I wish you well.
OK, before you go though you have mentioned JS criminal record. Can you tell me 1 act that JS was criminally convicted of? If there are more than 1, you don't have to tell me, but give me 1.
 
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
@Peter1000 You have yet to provide me with one example of a passage JS uses as evidence for the claim you can only trust the bible as far as it is translated correctly. But there is plenty of information available as to JS criminal activities and arrests, even fair mormon admits it (although they don't agree that he was convicted for it). And of course you will deem the very first few I link below as anti- mormon and therefore not true. If you google Jospeh Smith criminal record you will find a TON of websites on the subject. He had legal issues in many states, New York/Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois - but yeah, I'm sure he was 'totally innocent' of everything and its just all 'made up stuff' from 'anti-mormon haters'. He does seem to be good at 'getting off' but he didn't escape the guilty verdict for his illegal banking incident, but you can just move states (which he did to avoid the banking fraud case a year later, as well as a BUNCH of other charges) to avoid justice as there was no extradition laws back then. The outcome was Guilty (tried in absentia), each fined $1000 1837.

Understand me when I say this is the last time I will engage in this conversation. You have not provided me with one example of a bible passage that JS used as evidence that the bible was incorrectly translated and not completely trustworthy Yet you have the nerve to make demands on me for information 'before I go' after I have said I am completely done with what I deem a pointless conversation.

I AM DONE WITH THIS THREAD.

Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system - Wikipedia

All references are linked at the bottom of the page.

New York arrest records of Joseph Smith

Fact-checking Mormon History: was Joseph Smith a Convicted Con Man?

Legal Trials of the Prophet: Joseph Smith's Life in Court - FairMormon

Fair mormon attempts to explain
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
@Peter1000 You have yet to provide me with one example of a passage JS uses as evidence for the claim you can only trust the bible as far as it is translated correctly. But there is plenty of information available as to JS criminal activities and arrests, even fair mormon admits it (although they don't agree that he was convicted for it). And of course you will deem the very first few I link below as anti- mormon and therefore not true. If you google Jospeh Smith criminal record you will find a TON of websites on the subject. He had legal issues in many states, New York/Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois - but yeah, I'm sure he was 'totally innocent' of everything and its just all 'made up stuff' from 'anti-mormon haters'. He does seem to be good at 'getting off' but he didn't escape the guilty verdict for his illegal banking incident, but you can just move states (which he did to avoid the banking fraud case a year later, as well as a BUNCH of other charges) to avoid justice as there was no extradition laws back then. The outcome was Guilty (tried in absentia), each fined $1000 1837.

Understand me when I say this is the last time I will engage in this conversation. You have not provided me with one example of a bible passage that JS used as evidence that the bible was incorrectly translated and not completely trustworthy Yet you have the nerve to make demands on me for information 'before I go' after I have said I am completely done with what I deem a pointless conversation.

I AM DONE WITH THIS THREAD.

Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system - Wikipedia

All references are linked at the bottom of the page.

New York arrest records of Joseph Smith

Fact-checking Mormon History: was Joseph Smith a Convicted Con Man?

Legal Trials of the Prophet: Joseph Smith's Life in Court - FairMormon

Fair mormon attempts to explain
There is no doubt you can bring up lots of incidents where JS was arrested and charged and then not convicted. From the time that JS told people about the BOM, his arrest record is lengthy. These were all contrived arrests to harrass and beset JS with days and weeks months and years of trying to defend himself, which in itself is tiresome and useless, and expensive.

So yes he was arrested many times, perhaps 100 times, but then you here words like:
allowed to escape
convicted in abstentia
charged but not guilty
illegally detained

Why was he allowed to escape? Because he was innocent of all charges, and the authorities did not know what to do with him. And besides when he was allowed to escape, they would have legitimate reasons to go after him again.

Do you know how many banks went belly up in 1837? Hundreds if not thousands. The bank at Kirtland bank also went belly up too. Not because of anything else but a depressing land valuation time. After the bank went down, JS did not stay around, because he was threatened with death by the investors in the bank. He had to get out or die. He chose to get out.
Bottom line of the bank deal, he would have been found not guilty there also if he could have defended himself, but he could not. So you have your guilty verdict in abstensia. A hollow victory.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RoseCrystal
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There is no doubt you can bring up lots of incidents where JS was arrested and charged and then not convicted. From the time that JS told people about the BOM, his arrest record is lengthy. These were all contrived arrests to harrass and beset JS with days and weeks months and years of trying to defend himself, which in itself is tiresome and useless, and expensive.

So yes he was arrested many times, perhaps 100 times, but then you here words like:
allowed to escape
convicted in abstentia
charged but not guilty
illegally detained

Why was he allowed to escape? Because he was innocent of all charges, and the authorities did not know what to do with him. And besides when he was allowed to escape, they would have legitimate reasons to go after him again.

Do you know how many banks went belly up in 1837? Hundreds if not thousands. The bank at Kirtland bank also went belly up too. Not because of anything else but a depressing land valuation time. After the bank went down, JS did not stay around, because he was threatened with death by the investors in the bank. He had to get out or die. He chose to get out.
Bottom line of the bank deal, he would have been found not guilty there also if he could have defended himself, but he could not. So you have your guilty verdict in abstensia. A hollow victory.

None of this is a valid answer, the man had a rap sheet a mile long (not a good thing to have on the resume of a 'prophet of god who restored the only true and living church on the face of the earth'), and with no extradition laws it was easy to just move and avoid conviction, which Joseph did, over and over again. And as far as I know Joseph Smith was the ONLY 'prophet of god' who said that God told him in revelation that anyone who invests in his bank will not lose their money - and they all lost their money! So false prophet evidence right there too

And you have yet to provide me with even one example of bible passage the Joseph Smith used as a reason to declare the whole bible only trustworthy 'as far as it is translated correctly'.

This conversation is beyond pointless
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
(not a good thing to have on the resume of a 'prophet of god who restored the only true and living church on the face of the earth'),

Moses killed a man.

Paul was an accessory to murder.

Simon Zealotes' surname indicates he may have been a member of a movement that was, essentially, comprised of religiously-motivated terrorists.
 
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Moses killed a man.

Paul was an accessory to murder.

Simon Zealotes' surname indicates he may have been a member of a movement that was, essentially, comprised of religiously-motivated terrorists.

Moses was a prophet who performed miracles through the power of God.

Paul and Simon were apostles of Jesus.

You just can't compare these 3 people to Joseph Smith, a guy from the 1800s, who was a convicted criminal with a quite an impressive rap sheet who started a religion that allowed him to marry at least 34 women, a lot of whom were already married to other men, promote racism, rip people off their hard earned money, outright lie to people about what his church believed to get more members, and just skip town when he'd pushed his luck too far.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
Moses was a prophet who performed miracles through the power of God.

Paul and Simon were apostles of Jesus.

You just can't compare these 3 people to Joseph Smith, a guy from the 1800s, who was a convicted criminal with a quite an impressive rap sheet who started a religion that allowed him to marry at least 34 women, a lot of whom were already married to other men, promote racism, rip people off their hard earned money, outright lie to people about what his church believed to get more members, and just skip town when he'd pushed his luck too far.

You do realize that this is, essentially, a double standard, right?

You're saying that the crimes and sins of one group are fine because you agree with them, but the alleged sins of another group aren't because you don't like them.
 
Upvote 0